Ah election year. Never is english (not English language but the more, ahem words that get thrown about in the guise of true language… moving on…), anyway, never is english banished about and torn apart over little words and images more than in election year. I have a real problem when folks brandy about their protest, or more rarely support, without also showing the source of their information. Much is said about Freedom and Religion. I have to asked though, is the question Freedom OF or Freedom FROM? A bit of historical perceptive here. First Amendment Center of Illinois has a really nice site helping to clarify many things regarding our nations laws with NO Bias. (refreshing).
First off Religion and the Freedom about it is numero uno in terms of priority in our Amendment. It says freedom OF religion not FROM. Why? Because we have freedom OF we have no need for freedom FROM. Yet the way some people talk, we do! All medical insurances MUST include the right or access to abortion or sterilization. *Sigh* and because our medicine is becoming more socialized, people are demanding that every policy be the same in some regards but not have to be in others.
This causes me to pace the room a lot. Where we should be morally and where we are legally are two different animals and many folks forget that. Medications, procedures, history of knowledge and many other things tend to smash, dash, and pretty much destroy any form of purity when it comes to religious practices. Very Catholic women and men have been sterilized. Why they chose to have that done is a very private matter and gone over with their priest (or not). If the only insurance they have access to, is their Catholic based one, which does not provide that choice, who is legally responsible for paying for the cost? Well I am going out on a French Fry here to say, the couple. Why?
If you chose to accept the insurance as issued by the Church, and you want a procedure that is not covered by that insurance, and it is OPTIONAL, then by law and rights, you need to seek alternative funding or coverage. What if what the woman has done is to save her life? That is a whole other batch of laws and one I am in no position to debate or talk about. What I am talking about here, are options available for most of us who practice our Freedom of Religion.
Why can’t there be insurances offered by various Charities that happened to reflect the faith of that one? If there is something you believe you might need or want to have as an option, you can get partial insurance from a secular service. Or at least that should be an option. I see it as no different than going to an insurance broker getting car insurance and sometimes end up with a package that includes a diverse package of insurances to meet budget and fiscal planning needs.
I want the option to have a second cochlear implant, but my insurance will not pay for it. Options are for me to find a secondary or another private carrier that will supply or work to get me what I want (need). I want to exercise my freedom to have the best medical care possible. Sadly, as long as that will have $$ involve, it will always benefit those with bigger budgets than those without. This is where the arguments become contentious. Is it legal to deny a wife contraceptive because the husband wants to follow the full Church beliefs and never use them? As for the methods that are approved, ahem, they don’t tend to be very, reliable unless your periods are rock solid on time. HA! How many ladies out there can say that with a straight face? So what is the option for that woman? Heh, believe it or not, she can tell her husband, no no not tonight, too close. I am too tired to number five child on the way! (as an example).
Point is, the contraceptive angle is not just a Church matter. It is a matter of two people who do the act of creating children and the responsibility that comes with that. Which is, if you have sex, you are making children. Flat out the truth, no getting around it. One can exercise by being chaste. This is not the place to discuss battered, sexual violence, and domestic violence situations. That is a whole other set of post. For everyday normalized relations between hetro couples… I propose that various religious services that want to offer insurances based on their faith be allowed to do so as they see fit. Along with the proper education of what that insurance entails. If there is something more they want, there can be add on insurances optional. Or, they can try to go secular and get a more standard insurance plans. In order to do all that, we first need to make sure its available.
What I see here is that insurance will become available for greater number of people, and capitalism will get to play on weeding out what works and what doesn’t. Or we can go a very different route and have a medical Share plan instead. This plan is based more on the ideas put forth most famously in the books of Acts. We do need to have something broad base to cover the most basic care to keep our society as disease free as possible. Public Health care has always been about, but many times it would be so drastically under served that when there was a true need, there was not enough people or services to staunch a crisis.
We do NOT need Freedom FROM Religion to be able to practices choices in our Freedom OF religion. What we need is freedom from rhetoric and loudspeakers squawking gibberish.